Interesting read concerning Bujinkan

[bencole]

This is very intersting. So are the nine ryu of the Bujinkan Koryu, "Kuden", or a mixture? What is the definition of a Kuden, and which of the 9 ryu fit which?

"Kuden" means simply "oral transmission." It is a completely valid and historically verifiable way in which Ryuha information has been passed on in Japan across various disciplines (from martial arts to ikebana).

As for what constitutes "Koryu" and what constitutes "Kuden," and who decides, and what it means, I will point you to this.

http://blog.bushinbooks.com/

I've been thinking for a while of starting a blog containing "cool posts" that I've collected over the years. So many great posts have been lost to thread drifts, flame wars, thread deletions and thread locks. Whenever I saw a cool post, I would usually cut-and-paste it into Word, or print an electronic PDF of it.

I had been thinking about making this information available online as a "best of the boards according to biased bencole" , but I've found that I really don't like the way blogging tools allow me to organize information. Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I've had a lot of difficulty trying to make things fit within folders, etc. I've got a ton of cool stuff going back to the days of Ninpo-L, but if I cannot figure out a way of organizing them all by theme, it's going to be a complete mess. (If anyone knows WordPress and has some ideas about how to place more than one post below a navigation tool, let me know! Right now, it displays all articles all the time. If it does that for every article, then my navi will have hundreds of links displayed at the same time. Yikes!)

Anyhow, if you are willing to ignore the dysfunctional navigation and the relative lack of information in this skeleton page, these two initial posts MIGHT be helpful to you. This blog thing may never get off the ground, but at least these two relevant posts are there and consumable. So, for now, the tools fits; let's use it. LOL!

-ben

 

[Don Roley]

There seems to be this misconception that proving a historical lineage is a really hard and almost impossible thing to do. Now if that was the case, how did Katori Shinto Ryu and Takenouchi Ryu and Araki Ryu and Yagyu Shingan Ryu and all the other koryu manage to prove their lineages? Why wasn’t it such an impossible task for them? They all had to deal with the same floods, wars, fires etc. etc. that everyone else did, but they’ve managed just fine.

The schools you list are all high profile arts that were famous long before the modern age. There are people talking about them and the exploits of their founders and practicioners in records going back a good long time. They also were wide spread with a lot of practicioners with their own records pretty much all over the country.

There were many more arts that were smaller and pretty much unknown outside of a few people. People did not hear about them, did not talk about them and left little or no mention of them. Or a reference in passing is all we know of them, and not much else.

It wasn't due to secrecy. It is just that they were not big enough to be noticed like the Katori, Takeuchi, Yagyu or other schools like that.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Actually Don, Ben and everyone else, based on his post over on E-Budo I think that Kuosho is really not interested in our opinions and was possibly just trolling here to get us going.

http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31690

 

[Cryozombie]

I think that Kuosho is really not interested in our opinions and was possibly just trolling here

Nooooo... its just not possible. A troll in the ninjutsu section?

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Nooooo... its just not possible. A troll in the ninjutsu section?

Yep, surprise, surprise!

 

[Koinu]

Yep, surprise, surprise!

The title of this thread should have been , A boring OLD read about the Bujinkan .

This article has been around for some time and appeared on a Greek BBS first, way before it was dredged up and put on Ebudo.

Mr Dervenis has many holes in his own story and his time lines about things he put forth as facts are well to be polite way off.
Some here have stated they like to know the real story ? Well you won't get it posting questions on BBS's.

IMHO if Hatsumi or Takamatsu made all this up even more reason for me to train with them as that in itself proves beyond doubt just how talented Martial artist they are/were ! Rubber Tanto hit the nail on the head with his first post.

 

[Don Roley]

Actually Don, Ben and everyone else, based on his post over on E-Budo I think that Kuosho is really not interested in our opinions and was possibly just trolling here to get us going.

http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31690

Brian,

You are one of the most level- headed guys here. If you think that the guy is just someone who joined martialtalk to fill out an agenda, then I think I will listen.

My advice to Kuosho is to read the two books by Koyama Ryutaro on ninjutsu if you really care about the matter. They are out of print, so I do not like to use them as a source. But if you really want to go around saying that there is no proof about the Togakure ryu, then it seems only natural that you would seek out all the sources written by independent historians before you make such broad statements.....

 

[kuoshu]

Mr bencole,
Kindly lose the patronising tone. Don’t assume that because I am new to martialtalk that I am also new to the topic under discussion. I happen to be extremely familiar with what’s going on. I spent many years in Mr Hatsumi's system before I finally decided to leave for two main reasons. One of them being the historical legitimacy. You should have done YOUR homework and checked with me first, before assuming that I "haven't read the materials before class".


I realise that this is a painful issue for you, being as heavily invested as you are. I note that your book (which I have, BTW) claims that "the nine schools of the Bujinkan hail from the ancient battlefields of Japan" and that it is probably uncomfortable for you to realise that maybe only two of them at most -- Kukishin and Takagi -- actually are anywhere near that old. (Strictly speaking, you can't even count Takagi as a battlefield system, but that's getting off the topic.)

On page 2 of your book you write "Within the words was wisdom of thousands of years of lineage" and on page 3 you write "To do so is to ignore 2,600 years of wisdom that forms our heritage". Now, I can fully appreciate that it's distressing for you to realise that maybe an extra zero or two has crept into those numbers. But please try not to take things so personally.
But firstly, let’s look at your comments about Kostas:

I don't see why people are going crazy over a guy who speaks/reads no Japanese who spent about a year in Japan

It’s interesting to note that not so long ago, you were PRAISING Kostas as being someone who “still has all of his old materials and some really great stories”. His opinion was good enough for you when you used it to discredit SKH, so why are you suddenly trying to trivialise his experiences?
Now let’s get back the koryu thing.

Well, it was certainly easier for school with essentially "daimyo sponsorship" or "temple sponsorship" to do this. Why do you think these "well-known schools" are, well, ya know, "well known"?

Not all the schools that are recognised as genuine today were well known or had sponsorship. And as Don roley has pointed out on eBudo, Kashima Shin Ryu is an excellent example of a school that was obscure until the last headmaster came forward in the 20th century. However, here's the difference: Kashima Shin Ryu was still able to prove its lineage and be accepted as koryu.

The response has *ALWAYS* been the same among senior students: "The Koryu people have no real interest in ninjutsu so we shouldn't expect them to know much about such schools." If you are going to base your opinions of "the changing Bujinkan response" on what some green belt in Montana says, then your compass isn't pointing North, dude....

Again, stop with the patronising attitude, dude…

Let’s look at the rebuttal of Duncan Mitchell which is still thrown about to “disprove” the koryu.com article. In his original essay, Mr. Mitchell writes:

There are writings, documents, articles and photos, which clearly link Takamatsu to the three men who he trained with. The link to the people from who Takamatsu inherited these traditions is easy to trace BUT you have to actually look

Reading this, you get the impression that it’s obvious that Toda (the main person in question, by the way) existed and that he taught Togakure Ryu to Mr Takamatsu. In fact, Mr Mitchell emphasizes:

the link of Takamatsu to Toda, Ishitani and Mizuta is also provable

However, now it transpires that the proof of Toda is not actually there after all! Even Mr Tanemura, a policeman, was not able to find any record of the man. And this in a country as record-obsessed as Japan. Hmmmmm.

So now Mr Mitchell’s stance has recently changed to be:

Common sense but since I can’t produce hard evidence I can only agree that if you want to doubt it then I acknowledge that either of us could be correct.

So the links to Toda aren't that clear, are they?

The Koryu crowd essentially came out saying that the Bujinkan is not Koryu. I (and many others ) completely agree!!! "The Bujinkan" was completely made up as an umbrella organization in the honor of Takamatsu-sensei by Hatsumi-sensei.

Agreed. However, you should know full well that this was only one prong of the critics. The other prong is whether the individual ryu-ha are genuine.

Now, just because the Bujinkan is *NOT* Koryu does *NOT* mean that none of the Bujinkan arts are Koryu. And by "Koryu," this means befitting the definition of Koryu according to that crowd. After people pointed this out to the Koryu folks, the Koryu folks essentially agreed with those assertions. There is simply no way you or they could argue that schools like Kukishin Ryu or Takagi Ryu are *NOT* Koryu....

This is a red herring as far as I'm concerned. Mr. Hatsumi hasn't made his name through Kukishin and Takagi Ryu. And most of the people who joined the Bujinkan -- whether they will admit it or not -- first got interested in it because of the "ninjutsu".

Anyway, no-one's talking about these two ryu-ha. We're concerned with the "ninjutsu" schools, putatively taught by the oh-so-elusive Mr. Toda.

As for the "ninjutsu arts" under the Bujinkan umbrella, I personally told Dr. Friday (on E-Budo) that I would facilitate an opportunity for him to view Hatsumi-sensei's documents and speak with Hatsumi-sensei. Dr. Friday declined this request. Why? Because, TOGETHER NOW, "he has no interest in ninjutsu arts, and thus has little knowledge to make an assessment." End of story.

Did you offer to pay for his flight and travel expenses too? Why should the burden be on him to come to Japan from Georgia to investigate something that he probably thought was false to start with?

As an aside, if you did your homework, you would also recognize that a vast number of Ryuha in Japan (across martial arts, flower arranging, tea pouring, etc.) are considered "Kuden." I'm sure the thousands of instructors of Kuden arts would be quite unhappy to hear that their arts can be completely dismissed merely because a group of 100 people who follow a different lineage vehicle say so. BOTH "Kuden" arts and "Koryu" arts are valid. Period.

This is laughable. I understand you speak Japanese extremely well, so I'm puzzled why you would use the word Kuden incorrectly. Kuden means "oral transmission" yes, but it's NOT the opposite of Koryu, as you are using the word. I think you are just parroting Sean Askew's article, in which he makes the same error.

Koryu schools contain Kuden as a matter of fact. It refers to the fact that teachings aren't written down. It does NOT mean that evidence of the school's existence wasn't documented. All those tea and ikebana schools you mentioned may teach their techniques orally, but there is still a trail of documentation to prove they existed.

If you don't believe me, check Wayne Muromoto's post here http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showpost.php?p=93248&postcount=11

He writes

But basically, I take umbrage at "Sean"'s appropriation in his defense of ninjutsu regarding tea. It bugs me because I'm a tea student. Sean stated:

(snip)

...Many Japanese traditions including Karate Koppojutsu, Cha-Do, Sho-Do, Etc. have been handed down in a Kuden format for centuries....

(end of snip)

Tea is not kuden. With all due respect, the way the writer used the word kuden is wrong, first of all, but that's another argument.
In all traditional iemoto arts like tea, there is a very well documented lineage line that goes back to some historical master. And lots and lots of documentation. Documentation goes back to the time of Rikyu and before. We know all the players. If anything, Sean and others who try to research ninjutsu should use better examples. ...Not to slight the technical strengths of the art, but anyone who wants to cite examples from tea should be better prepared to have some real understanding of it. That's all I wanted to say. I'm not looking for a who said what argument. Just a bit peeved at the misappropriation of sado.

You should have checked your facts were right before you decided to lecture about them. That's what you do in your teaching job isn't it?

After all: If you would not do so in the classroom, then don't do it here on the boards.

Paul

 

[kuoshu]

My advice to Kuosho is to read the two books by Koyama Ryutaro on ninjutsu if you really care about the matter. They are out of print, so I do not like to use them as a source. But if you really want to go around saying that there is no proof about the Togakure ryu, then it seems only natural that you would seek out all the sources written by independent historians before you make such broad statements.....

Mr Roley,
As Ron Beaubien has already explained to you on eBudo, this whole Koyama Ryutaro thing is meaningless as proof. So there is reference to some man called Daisuke Nishina. So? Does it say where he lived? Is it even the same man? Does it make any reference to Togakushi or Togakure Ryu? And even if it is the same person, where are the other 32 generations linking him to Mr. Takamatsu?
Paul

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

One could question the meanfulness of the input of Dr. Friday regarding an issue he himself says he's not qualified to, nor interested in, making an assessment of.

 

[Cryozombie]

Mr bencole,
Kindly lose the patronising tone. Don’t assume that because I am new to martialtalk that I am also new to the topic under discussion.
Paul

Mr Paul.

Let me help you out here. New to the discussion or not, you are new to the board, and, I'm sorry to say, are also in violation of the Boards rules with almost all of your posts in this thread. Perhaps you should read them, if you wish to continue participating here.

 

[bencole]

Actually Don, Ben and everyone else, based on his post over on E-Budo I think that Kuosho is really not interested in our opinions and was possibly just trolling here to get us going. http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31690

Thanks, Brian. This reveals a lot and shows me that I really need spend little time trying to argue with Mr. Zelios. I will address three things that he said to me, though.

I don't see why people are going crazy over a guy who speaks/reads no Japanese who spent about a year in Japan

It’s interesting to note that not so long ago, you were PRAISING Kostas as being someone who “still has all of his old materials and some really great stories”. His opinion was good enough for you when you used it to discredit SKH, so why are you suddenly trying to trivialise his experiences? Now let’s get back the koryu thing.

I do appreciate Chuck's attempts to appropriate my praise of his understanding of the FEELING of training as vindication that he knows what he is talking about in terms of historical authenticity, but his sieve simply don't hold water.

For the record, I think Chuck had very good movement when he was in the Bujinkan (based on videos that I've seen of him), and I think that he understood well the "feeling" of what Hatsumi-sensei has *ALWAYS* been teaching (despite attempts by Hayes, McCarthy, Roy and others to try to tell everyone that "training was different"). It is clear that if one was paying attention and training properly "back in the day," one could get the essence of the movement that Hatsumi-sensei was trying to impart. Chuck *HAD* that essence, in my personal opinion, and I've stated this publicly before.

Even if one has good movement or an understanding of feeling IN NO WAY MEANS that one also has a handle on history, legitimacy, etc. These are completely different skillsets--CHUCK (and his teacher Charles, whom Chuck quotes as a source) *NEVER* HAD THAT SKILLSET, PERIOD. Innumerable others lack that skillset as well. That's not "insulting" or "patronizing"; it's simple fact.

Just because Chuck never saw anything in Japan to resolve his questions does not mean that he would recognize what he was seeing in the first place or that he knew where to look. Chuck didn't read Japanese, didn't spend his weekend hidden in the National Library searching for obscure sources (like Don Roley has done), and so on.

It's a long stretch to say that having a knack for movement means having the skills necessary to dig for historical information. The skills are simply different.

Now, I like Chuck. Always have. We've had some very good conversations over the years.

But one needs to ask why someone who has been gone for over a decade now suddenly feels the need to start howling about the Bujinkan again. If one leaves, leave. Move on. Do what you wish. Create your own art. Climb a mountain. Plant a tree. But get in a debate with members of your former art about authenticity? To what end? To justify the reasons for your leaving? To bring everyone over to your side of the argument and have them leave for the same reason? It ain't gonna happen.

This reasoning makes me question why YOU particularly are here, Paul. You've made it clear that you left the Bujinkan for one reason or another. Why are you here, debating people? What's your goal? To be proved right? Do you enjoy the rush of debate? What is it? It behooves me why you and Chuck both waste your time with people training in an art that you left because you thought was suspect....

As for the "ninjutsu arts" under the Bujinkan umbrella, I personally told Dr. Friday (on E-Budo) that I would facilitate an opportunity for him to view Hatsumi-sensei's documents and speak with Hatsumi-sensei. Dr. Friday declined this request. Why? Because, TOGETHER NOW, "he has no interest in ninjutsu arts, and thus has little knowledge to make an assessment." End of story.

Did you offer to pay for his flight and travel expenses too? Why should the burden be on him to come to Japan from Georgia to investigate something that he probably thought was false to start with?

My, my. Aren't we demanding? If the guy is a historian of Japanese budo and studies a Koryu, one would HOPE that he OCCASIONALLY goes to Japan. If he is unwilling to spend $30 on train fare during one of these trips in order to "resolve his issues with ninjutsu," then that's his choice. I needn't pay for his trip in order to facilitate his viewing of the documents of interest. Sorry, Paul. You make it sound like I demanded that he fly out that week to resolve things to my satisfaction.

I was merely trying to facilitate accessing information to resolve his uncertainty on the subject; Dr. Friday demurred. One would think that a scholar of Budo would jump at the chance to see rarely viewed materials; for all he knows, they *COULD BE* authentic!!! Alas, Dr. Friday said that he wasn't interested in the subject matter. End of story.

Kuden means "oral transmission" yes, but it's NOT the opposite of Koryu, as you are using the word.

Did I ever say Kuden and Koryu were opposite? Did I ever say that a Koryu art does not contain Kuden? Nope. In fact, as you pointed out, many Koryu contain Kuden.

Quoting Wayne Muromoto to me doesn't change the fact that to be classified as a "Koryu" art, the art has to meet certain conditions, but that failure to meet those conditions in no way "taints" or "delegitimizes" the art. That has been the point of both Sean Askew, Luke Molitor, myself and others over the years. (Some Venn diagrams of partially overlapping ovals could help you and others to see what we've been saying.)

I hope this resolves your concerns. I look forward to hearing your reasons for being here, debating with people in an art that you found suspect.

All the best,

-ben

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Fascinating that someone who is no longer a part of an art (was he ever, who was his teacher) would join a board just to bash that art. What is even more fascinating is that the said person has nothing but conjecture and heresay to play with in his accusations. What is also interesting is that he started out in a nice manner but when pointed his conjecture from another board he is on the attack. Paul, you should know that Don Roley, Ben Cole and others have spent the time, effort and understand the language (both oral and written) to do their learning of this art. In other words what they say has some merit! What have you done to merit us considering your opinon?

 

[Tengu6]

Fascinating that someone who is no longer a part of an art (was he ever, who was his teacher) would join a board just to bash that art. What is even more fascinating is that the said person has nothing but conjecture and heresay to play with in his accusations. What is also interesting is that he started out in a nice manner but when pointed his conjecture from another board he is on the attack. Paul, you should know that Don Roley, Ben Cole and others have spent the time, effort and understand the language (both oral and written) to do their learning of this art. In other words what they say has some merit! What have you done to merit us considering your opinon?

IMO, we all need to make an effort to stop feeding the trolls, people like Ralph and these others go away when they are consistantly ignored, problem is, someone always takes the bait.

I have no problem with honest questions, but trolls should not be fed.

- markk bush
www.bujinmag.com

 

[shinbushi]

but I've found that I really don't like the way blogging tools allow me to organize information. Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I've had a lot of difficulty trying to make things fit within folders, etc. I've got a ton of cool stuff going back to the days of Ninpo-L, but if I cannot figure out a way of organizing them all by theme, it's going to be a complete mess. (If anyone knows WordPress and has some ideas about how to place more than one post below a navigation tool, let me know! Rightben

Ben have your looked into a CMS like http://joomla.org . I use my bulk site for them and It is VERY customizable.

 

[Don Roley]

Mr Roley,
As Ron Beaubien has already explained to you on eBudo, this whole Koyama Ryutaro thing is meaningless as proof. So there is reference to some man called Daisuke Nishina. So? Does it say where he lived? Is it even the same man? Does it make any reference to Togakushi or Togakure Ryu? And even if it is the same person, where are the other 32 generations linking him to Mr. Takamatsu?
Paul

And as I responded, it is not conclusive proof, but strong when you consider the way it was brought to light in the 20th century.

There are a lot of schools that come from people, even mythical beings, that obviously they could not have. These things happen in matial arts. Tsukuhara Bokuden supposably was given the secret of swordsmanship in a scroll by the ghost of Minamoto Yoshitsune. The art he is creditied with, the Kashima Shinto ryu is considered a very legit art none the less.

And if you read the books I mentioned by Koyama Ryutaro, you would know that there is more evidence and things that click with the story. Yes, the Ninshina were known as an important family in what used to be known as Togakure. They backed Kiso Yoshinaka in the Genpei war.

If you really want to say that you dealt with all the facts and reject them, you should make an effort to do your research before doing so. You can read the two books in Japanese by Koyama Ryutaro as well as Ninjutsu no Kenkyu by Yumio Nawa- all of these deal with Hatsumi and the Togakure ryu. When you look over what these historians and researchers have said about the claims and proof of the Togakure ryu, then you might be willing to change your mind. But you really owe it to yourself to check out these books before you claim you can't find any sort of proof.

And you seem to have missed the point of my mention of Kashima Shin ryu. It is a fact that small schools can escape noticed when practiced by only a few people. It does not matter if there is one tradition being practiced, or several if they are all passed down by the smae group of people. If Kunii had died and his resources thrown out or burned before he revealed himself to the world, then there would be no one who would have known they existed. So things can be lost.

 

[Floating Egg]

I think this is a good time to remind everyone of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit, and I'm not just referring to the people that agree with Kosta. Based on the forum posts that I've read over the years, at Martial Talk, Kutaki, and E-Budo, some prominent Bujinkan members don't value critical thinking as much as they should.

Baloney Detection Kit

Warning signs that suggest deception. Based on the book by Carl Sagan "The Demon Haunted World". The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

Quantify, wherever possible.

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are:

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"​

 

[Cryozombie]

Yeah... well...

Who is Carl Sagen to give us that list... just some guy who thinks his standards should be followed.

After all if he is an authority on the subject... well...

Arguments from authority carry little weight

LOL.

Did he shoot himself in th foot with that one? LOL.
​

Sorry... its early and my humor circuts havn't fully switched over from sleep processing mode.

 

[Jigoku]

But one needs to ask why someone who has been gone for over a decade now suddenly feels the need to start howling about the Bujinkan again. If one leaves, leave. Move on. Do what you wish. Create your own art. Climb a mountain. Plant a tree. But get in a debate with members of your former art about authenticity? To what end? To justify the reasons for your leaving? To bring everyone over to your side of the argument and have them leave for the same reason? It ain't gonna happen.

I spent 20 years training and studying the Bujinkan arts. After meeting Kostas and being introduced to the Pammachon movement I left the Bujinkan...the reasons why I left are only important to me but let me make clear that I dont hold any grudge against the Bujinkan or any of its members.
Neither Kostas nor me are howling against the Bujinkan. The origin of this post never was clarified fully, yes partly on e-Budo, but not here until now.
Let me add some facts who could end this debate and put things in a clearer light:

Some Bujinkan guy in Greece (renting his training space from Kostas`and his students, that means teaching BBT in the Pammachon school in Athens) accused Kostas on a greek forum openly that what Kostas teaches now is nothing else than his own version of the Bujinkan.
To clarify this statement Kostas first tried to get somebody involved who trained or trains in both systems and isnt from Greece. And this one would be me. So I wrote a post about the differences between the Bujinkan arts and Pammachon as I see it and it was posted on the Greek forum. Apparently things didnt calm down and the Greek Bujinkan shidoshi-ho involved Kostas former teacher Charles Daniel. To clarify things Kostas wrote this rant that deals primary with his own training history. Quote Kostas:
"This rant has to do with what is tuaght in the Pammachon system, and how it relates to what is today called Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu".
Some english guy I never heared of put the whole thing on E-budo.....

Thats it: Indeed Ben we dont neither care about justifying our reasons why we left, nor do we wish to recruit students from the Bujinkan [god beware !!!!!!:barf: ]
yes we moved on (Kostas much much ahead of me) we climb mountains (especially in Switzerland these days)...
And well first and most we train a lot !!!

Best

Stefan Marcec

 

[bencole]

Neither Kostas nor me are howling against the Bujinkan. The origin of this post never was clarified fully, yes partly on e-Budo, but not here until now.

Thanks for the clarification.

Some Bujinkan guy in Greece (renting his training space from Kostas`and his students, that means teaching BBT in the Pammachon school in Athens) accused Kostas on a greek forum openly that what Kostas teaches now is nothing else than his own version of the Bujinkan.

WHO THE HECK CARES!?!

:sigh:

Please email me the name of this "Bujinkan guy in Greece" making these accusations ([email protected]). I think I'd like to speak with him about these threads, his concerns about Chuck, and the meiwaku he has caused people....

"This rant has to do with what is tuaght in the Pammachon system, and how it relates to what is today called Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu".

That may be the original intention, and Chuck certainly reserves the right to defend himself from accusations that he finds suspect, but Chuck certainly did lean into the Bujinkan pretty hard there.

My criticisms of Chuck's statements still stand--there are a lot claims and very little evidence in support of those claims. And now, across several boards, hundreds of hours have been consumed on this topic. We see ill-informed people chirping, "Those are some pretty serious allegations" and we see informed people barking, "What evidence is there behind these allegations?" And so on....

In the end, it's just a lot of wasted time, imo.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify, Stefan. Give my regards to Chuck and tell him he is free to email me whenever he wants to talk. Given the purpose of Pammachon as a vehicle of exploring the thread that ties all martial arts together, I am certain that Chuck would be interested in seeing where Hatsumi-sensei is in his development, just as Hatsumi-sensei would be interested in seeing how Chuck has developed. In the end, we're all climbing the same mountain, you know.

All the best,

-ben

"This moment is a gift. That's why it's called the present."